If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Apple to start behaving like Microsoft?!

11-27-2008, 05:48 PM

i was surfing around on my favourite blogs and found out that apple has issued a request to remove the visibility of the ipodhash project from bluewiki pages calling it as a violation of the famigerate dmca.
on the sam odio personal blog page there's a reference about what happened.
here's the link:

now, i really don't want to believe that something like this happened just because someone wanted to be able to use his ipod on linux without having to use that piece of crap of itunes running on wine (since there isn't any official version available for linux).
this really seems like a very bad act from apple...
fortunatelly the eff has decided to pick up the part of this project and to defend it from the charges apple's lawyers brought out.
i really hope that this ends out in no consequences for the ipodhash project.
i'd like to know what users think about this question.

Comment

Apple has always acted like Microsoft, if not worse.
They practice extreme lock-in:

Locked in carriers (AT&T)

Proprietary connectors (so they can up the price)

Don't let you run their software on 'non-mac' machines (but it is same hardware as PC)

Don't let you remove battery (so they can charge you for it)

Choose what software is available to you (AppStore)

Don't allow third party applications to compete (on iPhone AppStore)

Make machines like iMac desktop and mac laptop that are difficult to open thus unable to upgrade (new: aluminimum block) without buying new machine

Force you to pay for firmware updates and wireless drivers as well as point updates

Closed source except the open source code they decided to fork (steal?). Then they don't allow people to patch/fix it anyway. I say steal because the original project is not given credit and then development for the original opensource project that anyone could develop for is abandoned.

Edit: Somehow whenever they come up with one of these 'great' new ideas to lock people in, the fanboys pretend it is a feature though. Can't remove battery? Oh it's to save space! No 3G? Oh it's to increase battery life! Choosing software? Oh it's to protect you! Proprietary connectors? Oh the standard connectors don't have enough features! Aluminimum block? Oh it's more solid and not as cheap as the scratch-easy-plastic they used to give us! Pay for firmware updates? Oh they are really big updates and worth it!

Now you've come across an issue that is hard to answer. Don't allow third-party applications to complete? Oh, hmmm. Maybe they are worse than Microsoft?

Comment

Force you to pay for firmware updates and wireless drivers as well as point updates

Blame the Sarbanes-Oxley act, not apple for that one. It explicitly forbids "giving away an unadvertised new feature of an already sold product without enduring some onerous accounting measures"

Closed source except the open source code they decided to fork (steal?). Then they don't allow people to patch/fix it anyway. I say steal because the original project is not given credit and then development for the original opensource project that anyone could develop for is abandoned.

All credit and code are freely available from download from developers.apple.com.

All credit and code are freely available from download from developers.apple.com.

Stop trying to avoid what I said.
What I actually said was that they do not allow people to freely develop or patch their code. They have complete control over the source code. I never said it wasn't open source. Furthermore, they take development away from the original project, forcing it to be abandoned. So, while you can still view the source (as I said), it is no longer actively developed by the community. It takes a direction in Apple's sole interest.

Comment

Then I guess a lot of companies including Microsoft are in a whole world of trouble for those free feature packs. How this applies to wireless drivers I will never know.

It wasn't drivers, it was firmware. Apple does not charge for updates nor drivers. None of the features made available from the firmware updates were advertised in the product. Had Apple advertised the machines with 802.11 N capabilty when they came out it would have been OK. Because of Sarbanes Oxley, this is not possible. Seriously, do you think Apple made millions off a $2 upgrade? That all went straight to the accountants. CR reps were authorized at the time had people complained about the 2 dollar fee to give away ipods and other items as an appeasement. Now I don't know how you do your math but the cost on giving away an iPod is a heck of alot more then a $2 firmware. There are only a few thing that CR/Tech reps are not allowed to give away and those are iPhones, iTunes store items, and Applecares. Not because they can't afford too, legally they can't.

Stop trying to avoid what I said.
What I actually said was that they do not allow people to freely develop or patch their code. They have complete control over the source code. I never said it wasn't open source. Furthermore, they take development away from the original project, forcing it to be abandoned. So, while you can still view the source (as I said), it is no longer actively developed by the community. It takes a direction in Apple's sole interest.

They do no such thing, if someone wants to grab darwin for example they can do whatever the hell they want to with it. In the past there has been projects that utilized darwin but due to lack of interest it dies. If you want to fork the darwin source for example, by all means go ahead. If you want to fork cups, go ahead and do that as well. They do not take away from development what so ever.

Comment

Regarding CUPS I can say that Apple actually saved the project. True, not all the drivers are available to anyone, but still the system has proven to be the now defacto standard for Unix Printing, LPR(ng) is still around, and probably will be for a while still, however CUPS is the way to go in regards to printing in modern Unix systems.

Comment

Funny watching deanjo try to apologise for Apple's firmware update. Not because they are evil but because they legally can't? It had less features than my free upgrade to Windows Mobile 6.1. Why not make it a $0.01 upgrade? No, they actually made it cost $20 (not $2 as you state). And yes, that means they made millions of dollars (unlike what you said).
Free iPods? Where do I send my written complaint to? Seriously, lol.

Once again, not reading what I said: they fork the source code. The project now moves in Apple's direction instead of the community direction. That is, it now benefits a company instead of the people.

Find me a happy KHTML developer. These guys send patches for WebKit but Apple won't accept them so they still continue with KHTML (which is receiving no support now). Thanks Apple.

Stop apologising for them.

CUPS? Come on please. They didn't fork CUPS. They purchased the copyright and trademark in 2007 (last year). "Our intention is to protect the value of these trademarks and ensure that any derivative product meets the same high-quality standards as the original." In other words, if we don't like your product, it violates our trademark. Lock in? Hello! This is the exact same thing they are doing (and you are complaining about) with AppStore!

As Apple are now the copyright holder and have hired the main developer of the project (obviously, he knows the most about it), they will take CUPS in their direction and their direction only. He (Michael Sweet) nows answers (and codes) to them. This is good for us how? It's not.

You say Apple 'saved' CUPS. CUPS was fine in 2007. Not sure what date you're talking about. They haven't done much to it yet.

Edit: If you really want to debate with me, maybe read the comments from knowledgable people in this article.

Apple's history with opensource is troublesome.

Apple has never been portrayed as a good corporate citizen when it comes to GPL projects. The GPL code will become the red-headed step child of whatever Apple wants to do with it. For example, integrating colorsync or letting the gui die from benign neglect as Apple adds code that breaks the gui.

I'd like to hear from some people who work on Konqueror how much Apple is contributing. Based on my limited experience with Apple, I'd estimate they throw useless code over the wall surrounding Cupertino HQ every once in a while. I seem to recall they changed the license on some of their previously Free code a while ago too.

They are Free to do both, but I think their actions in these situations show they are just as hostile to Free/Open computer systems as Microsoft.

It uses GCC, but they hate it, or better yet, they hate that they have to use a product under the GPL. Steve Jobs tried to get special rights from the FSF to use GCC in NextStep, and the FSF said no, never. So, NeXT used GCC - the runtime part of Objective-C was proprietary though - and had to share the Objective-C support. I have little doubts that Apple will try to use/make another compiler as soon as they can so they can avoid having to share their changes.

|I have little doubts that Apple will try to use/make another compiler as soon as they can so they can avoid having to share their changes.
Indeed, Apple is active in the LLVM [llvm.org] project, a non-copyleft optimizing compiler backend. Currently, to make any real-world use of it, you have to use GCC as the frontend, but Apple is working on that problem, too [osnews.com].

No, you're the only one who got the point and someone needs to mod you up. This is quite wrong:

|Apple has not put themselves into a position of power over the FLOSS community with this move, as a GPL3 fork could be started at the drop of a hat, from whatever the last compatible release was.
Apple is in a position of power because they now own the CUPS copyright. They are only distributing it under GPL2/LGPL2, and it is not, and has never been available under that license "or any later version," so we can't make a GPL3 fork. The only entity that can get it into GPL3 (or any other license) is the copyright holder.

In the short term this is fine, as GPL2 is a good license. But Apple reserves the right to stop licensing it under the GPL. You could fork the project, but your forks would always have to be GPL2 forks (again, this is not exactly a disaster). But Apple can also make their own internal company modifications specifically for OS X, yet not release the changes to the community. They are no longer obliged to release the OS X version's changes because it will presumably be covered by the Apple EULA instead of the GPL. The only legal escape is to wait until the copyright expires in 70 years or so, then take the expired version's public domain code as your own and license it under the GPL3 or whatever. Get back to me in 70 years if you decide to try that. I'll beam over and help you update it.

Comment

Once again, not reading what I said: they fork the source code. The project now moves in Apple's direction instead of the community direction. That is, it now benefits a company instead of the people.

Find me a happy KHTML developer. These guys send patches for WebKit but Apple won't accept them so they still continue with KHTML (which is receiving no support now). Thanks Apple.

Stop apologising for them.

CUPS? Come on please. They didn't fork CUPS. They purchased the copyright and trademark in 2007 (last year). "Our intention is to protect the value of these trademarks and ensure that any derivative product meets the same high-quality standards as the original." In other words, if we don't like your product, it violates our trademark. Lock in? Hello! This is the exact same thing they are doing (and you are complaining about) with AppStore!

As Apple are now the copyright holder and have hired the main developer of the project (obviously, he knows the most about it), they will take CUPS in their direction and their direction only. He (Michael Sweet) nows answers (and codes) to them. This is good for us how? It's not.

You say Apple 'saved' CUPS. CUPS was fine in 2007. Not sure what date you're talking about. They haven't done much to it yet.

Edit: If you really want to debate with me, maybe read the comments from knowledgable people in this article.

I'm not apologizing for any such thing.

Are you COMPLETELY missing the one of the biggest benefits of opensource? No project in any project has to accept patches or code from anyone they don't please when it's being used for their product. If you don't like that you fork and due what you see fit. Patches get rejected every day on many foss projects. Hell just subscribe to any of the Xorg or Kernel mailing lists if you want to see it in mass. To quote Dave Airlie from xorg reguarding patches "also can people stop voting, this was never going to be a democratic process." Opensource projects follow the direction of whomever is leading the project. If you have any other notion that they do not then your just deluding yourself.